More control structures 
Author Message
 More control structures

Re: "More control structures :leave :continue :return :goto"

That pretty much completes the list...  However I (still) don't think
"control structure" is quite the right word to describe a goto.  They
are control _statements_ and by themselves do not divide a program into
"structures" of code.  If-then-else, case, for, and while are control
structures.  So is the function or subroutine.

Re: Jim Weigang's comment on nested blocks and lexically scoped subroutines

(Thanks for clarifying many things.)  The Manugistics' control structures
pretty much _are_ nested blocks, so (as you say) are already a big step.
Forward, in my opinion.  Perhaps they will soon see the benefits of local
subroutines (phrases) that can be passed to EACH etc. or called _safely_
by other functions or subfunctions.  As has been pointed out, local/embedded/
linked subroutines will simplify the management of both workspace and utility
functions.  Perhaps, Manugistics will add user-defined operators too :-)
(If Manugistics is not online, could someone at least alert them that we have
been discussing control structures, and APL*PLUS III in particular?)

Re: Jim Brown's comment that notation should be designed to make it easier
for people to write programs (don't have quote because news is flaky again;
thank you for commenting despite your busy schedule)

Flat workspace and dynamic scoping actually fits this philosophy, at least
for a while.  Problems arise as "programs" become more complex and import
utility functions.  Operators also encourage the writing of very small
subroutines (phrases) not intended for general "re-use", that really ought
to be embedded inside the parent function so code would be easier to write
and to read.  Right now there is a disincentive to structure code as separate
(physically disconnected) functions, especially in a crowded workspace.  Many
of us feel, lexically embedded/scoped subroutines would offer us a _choice_
in structuring code and would make APL programming both easier and safer.

Can we please have a show of hands, that local functions are highly desirable?




Sun, 16 Mar 1997 16:02:04 GMT  
 More control structures
Manugistics is online and following this discussion.

Bill Rutiser



Mon, 17 Mar 1997 01:34:52 GMT  
 More control structures

Quote:
> Can we please have a show of hands, that local functions are highly desirable?

If I believed in mass votes, I wouldn't be programming in APL.

                                                Martin Neitzel



Mon, 17 Mar 1997 03:15:09 GMT  
 More control structures
Martin Neitzel replies:

Quote:
>> Can we please have a show of hands, that local functions are highly desirable?
>If I believed in mass votes, I wouldn't be programming in APL.

Does that mean you do not vote?  I understand the "mass" has voted out APL
(not yet completely, but close), but you can still cast your own vote--indeed
you _have_, by continuing to use APL.  It is not meaningless for you to cast
your vote here, whether or not you (or anyone else) believed in mass votes.




Tue, 18 Mar 1997 02:13:37 GMT  
 More control structures

Quote:
>Manugistics is online and following this discussion.
>Bill Rutiser


Ah, we've fished you out :-) :-)  This is getting exciting.  Perhaps you
can share with us what you told Eke at APL94, in light of the current
discussion.  Thank you in advance,




Tue, 18 Mar 1997 02:04:15 GMT  
 
 [ 5 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Control Structure Question

2. Proposal for control structures in APL

3. Proposal for control structures in APL

4. Proposal for control structures in APL (SAMSON)

5. Control Structures in APL

6. Control Structures in APL

7. Control structures in APL

8. APL Control Structures

9. Control structures.

10. Control structures in APL

11. Control structures; discussion or proposal

12. Control structures in APL

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software